Sorry for the late reply. I'm getting so much mail at this address, that I don't always notice or track the reply to something I wrote until later...
On Apr 19, 2013, at 6:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> And I would rather be able to right a general rule about flowing content without worrying if I had it on a class that occasionally selected an image. And then having to write a separate rule for that.
>
> You... can? I'm confused about what you think will happen that's so
> terrible if you flow the contents of an image out. It'll look exactly
> like the original image, except it wont' have borders/etc. This is the
> same as happens with *any* element you flow content out of.
A <p> element containing nothing but text really contains a bunch of line boxes. Presumably, when the contents of the <p> are flowed into another element, it is those boxes that are the content that gets moved (they still have the line-height, etc. that was set on them from the <p>).
Yet, these line boxes representing the content do not have the width constraint of the original <p> container; they stretch to fill the width of the new container. I assumed that the image box contents of an <img> would do the same, once physically divorced from its original container. Without the width (or height) constraint of the original <img> container, it would completely fill the new container, just as it filled the old one.
Isn't that what you'd expect, if you had something like the following?
img#source {
flow-into: pictureflow content;
width: 100px;
height: 200px;
}
#dest {
flow-from: pictureflow;
width:600px;
height:300px;
}
Or are you imagining that the image contents automatically get wrapped in an anonymous element box that takes on the width and height properties of the element that originally contained it (the IMG)?